So many colleges are quoting that more than 50% of freshman or admits, depending on how they report, come from public hs.
Princeton:
Public 60.7
Independent Day 17
Religiously Affiliated 12.7
Independent Boarding 9.2
Swarthmore:
Independent 20%
International 10%
Parochial 11%
Public and/or charter 59%
Amherst reports it this way:
Public Admitted: 58% Enrolled 54%
Private Adm 31% Enrl 32%
I don’t see why not. The US is the only country in the world that admits students to its top universities based on their athletic skills. If you assume the alumni would revolt if Harvard didn’t win the Harvard-Yale football game most of the time, that doesn’t explain why crew gets its own admissions slots.
You also need to consider that only 8-9% of students in the US are enrolled in private HSs. A college that gets 31% of kids from private HSs has a tremendous overrepresentation. If you delve down in to particular HSs (both private and magnet), you’ll see an even greater degree of overrepresentation at certain HSs.
I don’t think this degree of overrepresentation is primarily due to preferences on the part of the college for particular pipeline HSs (there are a few exceptions, with unique histories). Instead I think the bulk of effects occur at earlier selections – both self selection among students and selection on the part of the HSs. Many of the private HSs and magnets with largest representations at “elite” colleges are selective HSs. If you have a selective HS with a high concentration of stellar students, it follows that an unnaturally large portion of the student body will be academically qualified for highly selective colleges. However, I think the most important contributing factor is self selection in which kids/parents choose to apply to or attend particular HSs. Parents/kids who are interested in applying to a selective private HS are probably going to be interested in applying to a selective private college. When you are surrounded by a group of students and parents who are hoping to attend a selective private college, it influences the group population on many levels including things like HS counselor recommendations.
The study at https://www.nber.org/papers/w18586.pdf describes this effect among high achieving, lower income students. It talks about two different types of high achieving, lower income students – “income typical” and “achievement typical.” Income typical high achieving, lower income students generally do not apply to selective colleges; while achievement typical generally do apply to selective colleges, often with the x reaches, y matches, z safeties type approach. Lower income, high achieving students attending magnets or selective HSs generally fall in to the latter group that applies to selective colleges. Low income high achievers attending non-selective publics HSs usually fall in to the former group that does not apply to selective colleges.
That’s what I was assuming, actually. Point is that they might counter some of the effect from the wealthy sports recruitment, since there are more students playing those sports than the wealthy sports.
How many students who otherwise wouldn’t get admitted but for their sports get admitted, broken down by sport AND SES? I am guessing the SES recruiting issue evens out when you look at recruiting as a whole across all sports.
And then there is the confounding factor of whether a particular recruited athlete would get in anyway. If there is a pipeline from elite high schools to elite colleges, as some allege, then it is probably more likely that a “wealthy sport“ athlete (that can only play the sport at one of those elite high schools) would have gotten in because of something else (ie the high school they went to), than a public school kid playing a typical public school sport.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_105.20.asp indicates that about 91% of high school students in the US attend public schools, so public high school graduates at 54-61% are underrepresented at the three colleges listed above.
When I have a chance, I will collect data on the undergraduate student cars in the parking ramp near my office (they are all on 2 levels, for students). I am at a large public research university. You are welcome to make guesses as to the outcome. I know the general shape of the data.
I do not know many people from “old wealth” in New England or even those from the East Coast more broadly. I am somewhat inclined to romanticize this group and their charitable deeds, low-key spending, and generosity toward others. So I buy into the idea that they are exactly as they are portrayed.
I am not demonizing a number of the extremely rich people I know by saying that they treat me and my spouse as somewhere between unimportant and nonexistent. There are definitely some in that category–not the "old New England wealthy. " Of course, we also have a few extremely wealthy friends who are very kind and interested in talking with us and working with us on various projects.
Earlier, I remarked that not so many people applied to the Ivies 40-50 years ago, making the legacy spots less of an issue. Blossom gave multiple reasons for the smaller number of applications, one having to do with the more limited range of travel for college. That probably holds in general, though my spouse was admitted to Princeton back then and I was admitted to MIT, and both were a substantial distance from our homes. I was dissuaded from Caltech due to the cost of transportation.
I appreciate blossom’s more complete discussion of reasons for the lower number of applicants–I was not attempting to cover all the bases with my post, just commenting that the number of applicants used to be lower. I do think that rising SAT scores due to re-centering have something to do with the phenomenon, though of course there are many other factors.
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/ncaa-demographics-database has some demographic information about NCAA sports.
You can select “The Ivy League” under “Select a Conference” to see what Ivy League student athlete demographics for various sports look like.
In football, Ivy League student athletes in 2018 were 54% white, 23% black, and 23% other.
It rarely does at highly selective colleges. The previously linked Amherst athletic report at https://www.amherst.edu/system/files/media/PlaceOfAthleticsAtAmherst_Secure_1.pdf found the following percentages of low income students. Given that 23% of Amherst students are “low income”, I’m guessing “low income” corresponds to less than ~median income – below the average US income, rather than truly low income.
Amherst Athletes – 4% are low income students
Amherst Non-Athletes – 31% are low income students
All Amherst Students – 23% are low income students
Both Amherst + NASCES conference and The Ivy League conference colleges have a far larger number of total teams in less popular less popular sports associated with higher incomes than more popular sports. So while football + track & field have a large roster, the total combined roster from the many other less popular sports is far larger than the few popular sports that traditionally have a decent SES distribution (less so at highly selective colleges).
Harvard’s expert in the lawsuit found that if all traditional hook preferences were removed and replaced with low SES preferences, the number of athlete admits would drop by 93%. Hardly any of the existing recruited athletes would get in without athletic recruitment preferences. All sides of the lawsuit could explain the majority of variances in admissions decisions, without considering name of HS attended, or whether it was public vs private. That’s rarely the key factor in admission. Instead it has more indirect influences in things like quality of academics, advising, and availability of opportunities.
Coaches want the most beneficial athletes they can get for their team at a given academic index, rather than focusing on the name of HS attended. You can look at the HS attended on most team websites. An example for Harvard is at https://www.gocrimson.com/sports/mbkb/2019-20/roster . Kids from well known private schools have a decent representation on all of the popular team sports I checked, in addition to just the preppy, less popular sports. However, the portion attending private schools I have heard of is especially high in many of the sports most would expect, such as sailing as skiing.
@Data10 When I plugged in a family which makes the lowest wage that a family in the top 20% make, i.e., $130,000, 4 members, one kid in college, with no other income, and about $100,000 savings, the CoA came out to $15,000. Top 10% income starts at $184,000, which, for a family of 4, with $100,000 in savings, produces an EFC of $39,300.
Affordable only if the families have done their finances really well, have been in that income bracket for a decade or so, and haven’t had any major emergencies, or haven’t bought a house recently and only have regular mortgage, etc. Stanford gave EFC for $130,000 as $25,800, and for $184,000, as $41,300.
The average in state CoA for public 4 universities was, in 2018-2019, $25,200. The average net cost for somebody in the top 20% was $29,100. Most do not differentiate between any income in the top 20%, so $130,000 and $184,000 are likely to pay more or less the same. However, the price of attending a public master’s or baccalaureate university is less. Also, some sates are much cheaper than others, with Vermont and New Hampshire charging $6,000 above average tuition, while Wyoming and Florida charge $5,000 less. In room and board, N Dakota charges $3,000 below average, while NY charges $3,000 more.
So the cost of attending an in-state public university for somebody earning $130,000 could be as low as Harvard’s $15,000 a year and many will be cheaper than Stanford’s $25,800. At an income of $184,000, most in-state public universities are cheaper than what Harvard or Stanford charge for that income bracket. However, out of state costs for research universities are a different story…
Many public universities are also extremely generous with merit aid for high or moderately high stats kids.
To begin with, only 10% of all students attend a private high school, of any type. Only about 20% of the kids attending private schools go to non sectarian private schools. So that’s 2% of all kids are attending a private, none sectarian high school. Yet they are more than 26% of the students at Princeton, and 36% of the students at Harvard. BTW, Harvard’s description of their incoming class of 2023 says “Students who reported legacy status were much more likely to attend a private high school than students who do not have a parent who attended the College.”
In fact, considering the fact that there are only about 60,000 kids graduating from non-sectarian private high schools every year, how many do you expect there to be in any of the “elite” colleges?
However, it’s not clear what point you’re trying to make. Many wealthy kids attend public schools in wealthy school districts.
@Leigh22 I think that would be connected to the “Privileged Poor” that Anthony Abraham Jack wrote about.
Ivy league is D1 for all varsity sports, but can arrange club teams if they want. They do not have the option of playing some teams as D3 teams. It’s D1 or club.
Div 3 schools can play up for one men’s team and one women’s team (and give scholarships if they give them to both men and women). There are a few D3 schools that play hockey at D1 because they historically did (pre 1970). Hopkins plays D1 lacrosse for both men’s and women and are part of the Big 10 conference for that sport only.
I was using inflation adjusted percentiles from the referenced study on which the NYT numbers are based, which limits to parents of kids in the college cohort group, so specific incomes at a particular top x% differ somewhat from your numbers. However, the general principle remains the same regardless of whether the cost for a top 20% low 6 figure income family is $8k or $15k. This is not a doughnut hole range that’s getting squeezed out due to excessive EFC. Instead it is a range for which Harvard is likely to be less expensive than in state public options, prior to merit scholarships. I’d make similar comments for the 80% of families with lower incomes than top 20%.
I agree that for those in top 10% income, such as the $184k income you listed, in state publics are likely to be less expensive than Harvard. However, this top 10% income group is a range that is well overrepresnted at Harvard, Stanford and similar. The distribution does not suggest a high EFC is preventing this top 10% group from attending.
Once you get to the top ~5% of families with >$250k income for which the NPC lists the full $75k+ sticker price, the degree of overrpresentation grows to even larger levels. Admit rate only appears to change by a few % at higher income levels (see http://samv91khoyt2i553a2t1s05i-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Doc-421-112-May-1-2013-Memorandum.pdf ), suggesting much of the overrpresntation among very high income students relates to an overrperentation among applicants. Rather than EFC preventing families from attending, instead it almost appears that the more expensive Harvard is compared to other alternatives, the more likely students are to apply. Part of this effect could also relate to most families not being aware of the generous FA and assuming that they cannot afford and/or would not choose to pay the $75k sticker price, unless very wealthy.
What happens if you take away the hook preferences (which includes more than just athletes) but don’t replace them with low SES Preferences? Putting in an SES preference would by definition create a swing away from kids who are wealthy.
I totally agree that there are other things beyond school name recognition that explain admission. The well-represented college prep high schools have their own admissions process (including sports recruiting and substantial financial aid), and do provide all kinds of enhanced opportunities. So you would expect those pre-selected and opportunity-rich students to have an edge in admissions.
It is a pipeline issue. Low SES, high achievers who find their way into top high schools should also find their way Into top colleges because of the opportunities they have been provided (including wealthy sports). How do we get more high achieving, low ses kids, and then how do we get them the educational resources that lead to top colleges?
The skewed admissions aren’t from colleges being elitist. They are choosing from an applicant pool that is the result of an unequal distribution of resources and opportunity.
^ And that takes us back to the issue of who’s qualified.
All the stats, all the census details on $ and numbers in age groups, quintiles, mobility, recruit stats… and then matriculant details, don’t tell you a college is elitest. They don’t explain. They don’t look at the process, qualifications, interests/directions of students, nor these kids, themselves.
Nor does the H trial yield the view of what adcoms work with, look for, and the actual circumstances, once at an elite. Plus, lots of presumptions.
You’re trying to glean, after the fact. Fewer kids poster x knows or more from better high schools or cars in the college parking lot are what’s visible. Not proof the elites are elitest.
Most of these colleges aren’t just looking at qualifications, when they consider various hooks. Why not get rid of all the hooks? Yes, the rich will still be better represented than the poor with a more meritocratic process, but the distribution won’t be nearly as skewed toward the rich. Why does the rich even need a helping hand in college admissions?
I do not like athletic recruiting, that side door. But the rest are reviewed for qualifications. Down to if some kid sounds pretentious or is just looking for prestige, can’t interact with peers, misreads what they want to find, etc, etc.
The answer isn’t get rid of hooks. That’s the battle cry from outside the gates. Folks assume rich or legacy (or poor or URM) has an absolute pull. (Lol, based on the number of legacies, eg, not a whit about their records, apps/supps, etc.)
But I do see how the assumption wealth or legacy has absolute pulll can lead to further asumptions. (Including what “merit” means. Or this idea it’s a sad, “helping hand.”)
Sure. They’re reviewed for “qualifications”. Are their admissions based on qualifications alone? Obviously not. If they were, why would they even need these hooks? The very presence of these hooks proves some of them need a help hand to be admitted, at the expense of some other more qualified applicants without these hooks, who also tend to be less wealthy or influential.
@lookingforward wrote:
Those stats don’t reveal the breakdown of percentages in the applicant pool. Princeton had about 35,000 applicants last year.
In raw numbers: Princeton accepted 5.5% of total applicants in 2018 . So that’s about 1950 students. Out of that, 26% are from the Day and Boarding schools: about 500 students. But the denominator - that is , the total number of applicants from day and boarding schools is not revealed publicly (as far as I know). I do not think it’s plausible that 26% (17+9.2) ,or roughly 9000 students, of the 35000 applicants came from an Independent Day and Boarding school. The number of applicants from those types of schools would be far fewer than 9000, given their smaller size and the fact there are far fewer of them than public schools. Some of these day and boarding schools send multiple kids to Princeton every year. I would love to be wrong and really believe that the percentages are somewhat reflective of the applicant pool. If anyone has data to share on that front, I’d love to see it.
And I always found it somewhat amusing that they include Asian Americans as minorities when totaling up the entire percentage (oh look - see all the non-white people we have…), but then they are considered ORM for admission purposes. My ORM kids have no chance at these universities. We have moved on.
Athletic recruits are also reviewed for qualifications, both academic and athletic.
They are also being evaluated on a personal level. Coaches may visit their high school, the club where they train or even their home. Even parents are evaluated too. The recruits meet many people and all feedback goes back to the coach.
Comparing to an average admit athletic recruits are “reviewed” much more thoroughly. At least, this was my experience.
“All the stats, all the census details on $ and numbers in age groups, quintiles, mobility, recruit stats… and then matriculant details, don’t tell you a college is elitest.”
Ok but do you think any college is elitist, or are they all egalitarian, accessible, open, humble? That would seem to be a very untenable position to take, but if that’s your opinion, fine. However if you think there are elitist colleges, how would you find that out without using numbers (since you seem to denigrate data and analysis). Would you go on campus to see if there’s segregation by wealth, see if the professors are approachable? That seems reasonable for sure, but it’s not something we can all do, so we rely on the numbers, which is what the article did to make its assertion.
So your idea of “qualifications” includes unearned inherited attributes like legacy or development relation, but not attributes which the applicant had to do something to earn like athletic achievement?